There are a number of standards in the medical field for communicating between the partially differing equipment. The DICOM standard is very frequently used, inter alia.
If image data are to be transmitted from the respective acquisition equipment such as, for example, an ultrasound unit or a magnetic resonance unit, to a workstation, a different type of data is involved than when, for example, so called reports, that is to say data from findings that are largely of a textual nature, are transmitted. Different demands are placed on the data transmission, depending on the type of data.
The fundamental transport protocol is responsible, in turn, for the type of data transmission. Thus, it can be expedient, for example, in some instances to admit large packets in the data transmission, while in other instances it turns out to be advantageous to stipulate only relatively small packets and, in turn, a higher frequency or a higher data transmission rate.
In most known medical applications, it has been customary to define as early as in the development phase which parameters are used for the configuration of the transport protocol. Consequently, the configuration of the transport protocol takes place as early as in an upstream phase and can be changed only with an increased outlay.
Consequently, it is no longer possible to react with unconstrained flexibility to different demands placed on the transport protocol. This procedure from the prior art therefore proves to be very disadvantageous.
Moreover, the transport protocol cannot be adjusted and/or adapted optimally to the current specific demands.
In order to avoid these disadvantages, systems have been developed that enable (renewed or adapted) configuration of the fundamental transport protocol even in a phase subsequent to the development phase. The disadvantage in these systems is, however, that there is always a need for a service technician to reconfigure the system on site. It has so far been impossible to adapt and optimize automatically.